OAR should mean the correct presentation of the film within the boundries of what it can be.

For example, Ben-Hur could be shown at 2.55:1 on TV instead of 2.76:1. But it's blatantly wrong when matted incorrectly to produce a false 2.76:1 ratio. Of course, anything under 2.55:1 would be out of the question.

On the other hand, a film like Help! (made at 1.33:1 for 1.66:1 matting) can be shown at 1.66:1 or 1.33:1 without compositional flaws. In fact, I used my video editor to correctly matte Help! to 1.66:1 and it looks great. But it looks just as good withotu the slight matting.

It should be a combination of what the film can be shown in and also what is reccomended by the filmmakers.

Shrek could actually be shown at 1.66:1 without a single bit of the picture lost. That's what it was rendered in...but 1.78:1 gives it better compositional form.

As the lone A voter, I feel it should be made clear that I mean the ratio the director first intended for the theaters. I don't vote B because that would be in favour of the mis-framing of Apocalypse Now on dvd as directors and DP have second thoughts, years later on how it should be shown.

I pick B. Even if a movie has been filmed in Super 35 or is a Soft Matte, I prefer to see it in widescreen. Some movies that are Soft Matted are ruined with the Mattes removed because there's a possibility of Mics and other props showing up in the picture. I prefer the widescreen of Super 35 because it looks more natural in widescreen. Jaws The Revenge is a Super 35. I compared the Fullscreen to the Widescreen. The fullscreen had a little more top and bottom information but had less info on the sides. The widescreen, which I own on DVD has a little less top and bottom info, but more info on the sides. And I do like the widescreen version better. I mostly prefer Cinerama, Panavision, Cinemascope, and any other widescreen techiniques that uses an anamorphic lense. Cinerama used a 3 camera techinique that I think is really cool.